Comments on: Nullification: Answering the Objections

By: @Spazduck

@Spazduck — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:59:19 +0000

That's entirely correct. The Declaration of Indpendence is not law. If you believe that the power to govern is derived from the people, you can't believe that the Declaration of Independence, drawn by an unelected body, has any legal force. Consider it persuasive authority regarding fundamental principles, but it's not law.

By: @thisgamesux

@thisgamesux — Sun, 29 May 2011 10:42:35 +0000

Just as a matter of record since your argument was systematically annihilated, Alexander Hamilton was a fucking cocknose who got owned in a duel.

By: eve

eve — Fri, 20 May 2011 06:12:53 +0000

Why are people so insistent on systems of government that are outdated and ineffective. What is the difference between a supreme court judge and a politician but the title? Judges are classified by their liberalism or conservatism just like the politicians. Doesn't sound like unbiased judicial review to me.
Doesn't matter whether nullification is recognized in form, it matters if its recognized in substance. When substance regains its rightful place in society, then we can start to appreciate individual sovereignty as the pursuit of happiness reserved by the people.

By: A Pro-Nullification President! – Nullify Now!

A Pro-Nullification President! – Nullify Now! — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:33:50 +0000

[...] that Tenth Amendment Center has on the subject of nullification, Tom Woods and Michael Boldin respond to the standard objections and point out the hypocrisy of pseudo-reporting from the likes of ThinkProgress and [...]

By: A Pro-Nullification President? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

A Pro-Nullification President? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:57:39 +0000

[...] the many articles that TAC has on the subject of nullification, Tom Woods and I respond to the standard objections and point out the hypocrisy of pseudo-reporting from the likes of ThinkProgress and [...]

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:50:25 +0000

A "nation" is a sovereign state; and the states were declared, retained, and finally recognized as "free, sovereign and independent states in 1776, 1781 and 1783 respectively. This means that they were sovereign nations– and they never transferred this sovereignty via the Constitution: even Lincoln didn't claim that. Rather, Lincoln– like Jackson and many others– twisted history to claim that the states always formed a single soverign nation, to which they would be subordinate; and this is an outright LIE.

It really is that simple.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:48:37 +0000

Spyguy writes:
"Alex. State Powers and Nullification are completely embedded within the Architecture and framework of the Constitution by natural law, logic, construction, framework and the actual wording throughout the various articles and the 9th and 10th amendments. "

No, they're NOT. State nullification is based solely on the state being a sovereign nation, and the Union being an international federal republic– not a national one. And sovereign nations, as everyone knows, can nullify any international law they want as affects their domestic policy– including seceding from international federal republics.

THAT's what nullification was all about– not some absurd convoluted argument, about some domestic law which permits otherwise-subordinate states to defy the sovereign national authority if it disagrees strongly enough; the sovereign will is final, PERIOD.
This is just a question of where that sovereignty lies.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:41:49 +0000

In 1800, James Madison wrote that "However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
As for the Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty was never about reserved powers under the Constitution; on the contrary, it was about the status as sovereign nations which existed BEFORE the Constitution– and never relinquished thereby, regardless of what informationally-challenged and power-driven individuals may claim.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:35:09 +0000

(continued)
Tom Woods writes:
"The legitimacy of nullification involves a philosophical argument"

No, it doesn't.
It only requires the national sovereignty of the nullifying state in question.

It really is that simple– unfortunately it's been complicated by misinformation regarding history and international law, to render some absurd association in which no one knew where final authority lay, and so it was "settled by war." This of course is false: each state was a popularly sovereign nation, and thus final authority lay with its people– nowhere else.

By: Brian McCandliss

Brian McCandliss — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:24:46 +0000

"Efforts by northern states to nullify the Fugitive Slave Acts were never legally upheld. "

You're confusing state laws with popular sovereignty. Nullification expressly pertains to direct acts by the sovereign People of each state, to overrule federal laws.